Obama losing Hill liberals on war

Tags:

Text Size

-

+

reset

The President is emboldening critics who think he could use a shakeup in commanding generals to change the war plan.
AP Photo

“The president is the commander in chief, and we all stand by him in the decision that he made in terms of who would be in command in Afghanistan,” she said. “So we’ve trusted him before, we trust him now; it’s just a question of where people stand on our involvement in Afghanistan.”

Petraeus, who was on Capitol Hill Thursday, will be back in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday for a hurriedly planned confirmation hearing. The last time he met with the senators, he fainted during a round of questioning from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has been among the lawmakers critical of the conduct of the war.

Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired Navy admiral who is the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania, said Obama needs to give Congress a better sense of how he measures success in Afghanistan, so that lawmakers can make informed decisions for their constituents.

“We haven’t gotten those metrics,” he said. “The strategy may be working. We just don’t have the metrics.”

Still, lawmakers hope there’s room to revisit the policy after Petraeus is confirmed.

“[Obama] would be imprudent not to have Gen. Petraeus report back to him based on what he finds on the ground,” Speier said.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a conservative on the Armed Services Committee, said after a Tuesday meeting with Petraeus that he is confident a fresh pair of hands will reshape the policy.

“Anytime there is a change of command, there is an opportunity to fine-tune the approaches and strategies being used on the ground,” Inhofe said. “After meeting with him in my office this morning, I know that is his plan going forward. If anyone can take control of the effort in Afghanistan and see it through to a successful completion, Gen. Petraeus is that person.”

Obama and war critics do agree on one key aspect: They agree that the general is not as important as the policy.

“We’ll see how it works out,” said Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), an outspoken opponent of the war. “It’s too early to say. But policy is more important than personnel. Clearly, someone has to be in charge over there.”

While most lawmakers are supportive of the Petraeus pick, some say no one — not even Ulysses S. Grant — could win the war.

“That McChrystal thing is just a symptom of what we won’t face up to, which is that it’s a totally failed policy,” Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) told POLITICO. “If we were on the verge of a great success, do you think we’d fire the general? So it was an absolute confirmation of the failed policy and yet the policy doesn’t change. They should have changed the policy and kept the general.

“Maybe that would have been better,” Paul said, before going on to say that it is the policymakers — not the military brass — who are to blame.

Readers' Comments (178)

Can anyone ask The "Brain-Trust" one question? "Why are we on the Afghan soil?"

McCrystal's "Surge" did not even work in Iraq, "We The People" PAID The Iraqis Not To Fight Us... Now we pay to travel on Afghan Roads, duh, How stupid is this President? Not quite as Bush (Who Let Cheney make this mess) -But - He is now following the 'Nation-Building-Strategy" and that's almost as bad ....

[Sidebar: It Takes a very Brave Man To say that The Mess is a Mess and Guns won't Fix The Mess Bush/Chenney left, but staying there is a selfish policy, so, we are leaving the governance of The Middle East TO their own population. I wish we had such a leader, willing to sacrifice his own political standing for common sense.]

Well weel, Obummers plan to get this off the radar before people could take a good look at what he is doing FAILED. Now he will have to explain just what his goal is. Are we going to be out of there in 2011 or not ? A slow draw down of troops that could take years and years is not what was promised and not what the American people will tolerate. Now we need to get the TRUTH ( Like that will ever happen out of the Obama Administration ) out of him before the elections in November. If he tries to again lie to the people the Democrats are history. So now it's Obummers turn. Is he going to keep his promise to the American people and END THIS WAR or not ? My bet this will be just another one of his Broken pledges and lies to the American people. Watch this LOSER carefully ! Watch Fibbs and Nimrod running around trying to cover up their real plans to drag this war out . The fools parade continues from this White House.

What Obummer doesn't realize is that the American people are FED UP with his lies and broken pledges. It is becoming more apparent everyday that a Liar and Crook is in the White House. This will be a Good lesson for the voters that will get Obummer a hasty exit OUT of the White House in 2012. He cannot decieve the American people anymore. They know a Liar when they see one. At least the Republicans have finally put a STOP to his out of control Spending, Obama has done enough damage to the economic future of this country in the 18 months he has been in office. Now we have stopped his agenda, lets Stop the WAR !!!

Ken- There is not a shred of truth in your post.... sad that you don't remember how we got where we are now .... all the GOP insisted that this President contunue wit The Chenney/Bush Doctrine of "Surge-Pay Them Not To Fight-and Hold For Nation Building Team" -now- you want to make it a broken promise by proxy? (You're no independent, 'cause, we find truth, post truth, not taking sides,duh)

I think it's a mistake to view anti-war sentiment as only coming from the left. I bet most Americans of all political stripes are sick to their stomachs over these long, drawn out American wars. (Of course there are the exceptions who want "war as sport" or "perpetual war," like McCain.) There is a large movement on the right that wants less military intervention, that wants less American money spent by the government abroad, that even wants military bases shut down and that money saved. Many on the right believe it is unconstitutional to be policing the world. So Republicans will be less eager to spout the usual "War now, war here, war there, war forever" crap. Obscenely expensive, blank-check, deficit-deepening, Republican warmongering is on the way out, if the libertarian tea partier types have their way. President Obama would be wise to see this and bring our troops home as fast as possible and talk about the importance of saving American lives and truckloads of money better spent at home securing our own borders, ports, computer systems, and cities. Many on the left and right (and sane Independents between the two) believe our overseas military campaigns are creating ten new enemies for every one we kill and that our national security would be far better served it we bring our troops and monies home and focus on strengthening our economy, independence and homeland security.

Look, the truth is that Obama came to Washington determined to implement a "change" of this country from a capitalist driven democratic republic to a socialist state in the mold of all the other socialist states that have failed or are in the process of failing.

He really doesn't care about the day-to-day distractions that most of us consider to be the core of his job. You know, distractions like 10% unemployment, the wars in the Middle East, trillion dollar deficits, the spill in the gulf, the recession, states going bankrupt, theimpending bankruptcy of the federal government, the war on terror, etc. To him, these things are just minor, unwanted distractions that don't really warrant his attention.

Oh, the other thing that draws his interest is the perks of the office. Golf every weekend, million-dollar vacations while so many people are out of work and wondering how they're going to feed their kids, million-dollar nights-out with the wife, lots of travel, parties in the Whihte House, and getting to meet all kinds of celebrities.

What a piece of work this clown is. It is going to take decades to recover from the damage he's done in just two years.

Fox-Fan = You are either ill-prepared for this debate or lack sources of truth (not a Fox strong point) All of your so-called "Distractions" - Were Here When Obama Took Office (The Oil Regulators were Bush appointees/ Chenney Friends) The 2 Wars were not in the Bush Budget, so, Those Are Bush Deficits Too, The Unemployment (Jobs Overseas) may be thought of as a result of The Repeal Of The Glass/Stegal Act by the 1999 Republican Congress....

Your Party is Applicable (saw the N/A by your name) -since- Truth is not a part of your discussion....

My bet this will be just another one of his Broken pledges and lies to the American people.

Why should anything be different - you know - I really believed the hope and change thing until Obama opened his lying trap. No lobbyists in this administration. "I will take public financing," etc, etc. The lies, deceit and corruption never end from this president.

The President clearly is missing the boat here. He should send Eikenberry and Holbrooke packing along with McChrystal and dump his really stupid July 2011 date (and any other date, as well). Putting a public date on any action in a war is handing a strong weapon to the enemy and stabbing our allies in the back. Reality seems to come home to the President in dribbles and he then moves a little bit at a time. Is there anyone who can clearly articulate our Afghanistan policy with goals and steps to achieve them? Certainly not that I know of. The lack of leadership in the White House manifests itself in the confusion over Afghanistan, the fact that the three top officials in Eikenberry, Holbrooke and McChrystal all were on different pages -- with McChrystal's closest to the President. If the President is to be an effective Commander in Chief he has to lead and not just be the Ass-Kicker in Chief after the fact.

There continues to be the unspoken option that has ben missing from our foreign policy for 60 years. Let's really win. One big one in downtown Waziristan wpuld end this nonsense once and for all. It will tell the terrorists that they will bring down their own nation in the future. some nations may even try to stop their own terrorists. It is an option that belongs on the table as it is definitely not a good idea to keep letting our GIs get killed for nothing. Enough. Win or get out now.

What a change! When Obama was 'Senator Obama', he repudiated the direction Gen Petraeus wanted to pursue in Iraq. The 'National Strategic Genius BIDEN' emphatically said Petraeus' policies would not work, and the Biden plan called for dividing Iraq into three pieces. Obama's income source -- MOVEON.ORG went so far as to run TV ads calling Gen Petraeus - "GEN BETRAY US".

Now, think there was a "Come to Jesus Meeting" between Obama and Gen Petraeus -- and Obama was doing the listening.

Yesterday, Obama was sounding and looking so much more 'BUSH LIKE' -- a welcomed change.

What a change! When Obama was 'Senator Obama', he repudiated the direction Gen Petraeus wanted to pursue in Iraq. The 'National Strategic Genius BIDEN' emphatically said Petraeus' policies would not work, and the Biden plan called for dividing Iraq into three pieces. Obama's income source -- MOVEON.ORG went so far as to run TV ads calling Gen Petraeus - "GEN BETRAY US".

Now, think there was a "Come to Jesus Meeting" between Obama and Gen Petraeus -- and Obama was doing the listening.

Yesterday, Obama was sounding and looking so much more 'BUSH LIKE' -- a welcomed change.